FSFootyScout
PlayersTeam IntelligenceScoutingLeaderboardCompareArchetypesModel

FootyScout · Football scouting and analytics

Based on available StatsBomb 2023/24 Bundesliga event data.

Player profile

Victor Okoh Boniface

Bayer Leverkusen · Center Forward · FWD

Matches observed23
Pass attempts391
Reliable sample

Actual completion

73.9%

289 completed passes

Pass difficulty

81.6%

How difficult a pass was to complete.

Actual vs. expected passing

-7.7 pp

-30.1 completions vs model expectation

Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.

Player intelligence

Position profile

FWD context · Each percentile is an empirical rank among eligible players in the same broad position group. Percentiles are not ratings.

Insufficient eligible position metrics for a meaningful radar.

Style

Tendencies describe what a player attempts; higher is not automatically better.

Pass difficulty

81.6%

Unavailable among FWD players

n = 3 eligible peers · sample 391

requires 10 eligible position peers

Under-pressure pass rate

26.9%

Unavailable among FWD players

n = 3 eligible peers · sample 391

requires 10 eligible position peers

Progressive pass rate

12.0%

Unavailable among FWD players

n = 3 eligible peers · sample 391

requires 10 eligible position peers

Long-pass rate

9.2%

Unavailable among FWD players

n = 3 eligible peers · sample 391

requires 10 eligible position peers

Average forward distance

-0.3 units

Unavailable among FWD players

n = 3 eligible peers · sample 391

requires 10 eligible position peers

Positive forward distance / 100 passes

437.9 units

Unavailable among FWD players

n = 3 eligible peers · sample 391

requires 10 eligible position peers

Final-third entries / 100 passes

6.138

Unavailable among FWD players

n = 3 eligible peers · sample 391

requires 10 eligible position peers

Carry share of actions

57.3%

95th percentile among FWD players

n = 20 eligible peers · sample 887

Progressive carry rate

12.4%

84th percentile among FWD players

n = 20 eligible peers · sample 508

Progressive action rate

12.0%

53rd percentile among FWD players

n = 20 eligible peers · sample 887

Under-pressure action rate

45.2%

84th percentile among FWD players

n = 20 eligible peers · sample 887

Shots / observed match

3.35 / match

Unavailable among FWD players

n = 2 eligible peers · sample 77

requires 10 eligible position peers

xG / shot

14.0%

Unavailable among FWD players

n = 2 eligible peers · sample 77

requires 10 eligible position peers

Performance

Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.

Actual vs. expected passing

-7.7 pp

Unavailable among FWD players

n = 3 eligible peers · sample 391

requires 10 eligible position peers

Under-pressure completion above expected

-9.9 pp

Unavailable among FWD players

n = 3 eligible peers · sample 105

requires 10 eligible position peers

Progressive completion above expected

+4.8 pp

Unavailable among FWD players

n = 3 eligible peers · sample 47

requires 10 eligible position peers

Long-pass completion above expected

-3.7 pp

Unavailable among FWD players

n = 1 eligible peers · sample 36

requires 10 eligible position peers

Goals above expected

-0.798

Unavailable among FWD players

n = 2 eligible peers · sample 77

requires 10 eligible position peers

Overall impact / 100 actions

-0.018

79th percentile among FWD players

n = 20 eligible peers · sample 887

Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.

Passing impact / 100 passes

-0.588

22nd percentile among FWD players

n = 19 eligible peers · sample 379

Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.

Carrying impact / 100 carries

0.408

95th percentile among FWD players

n = 20 eligible peers · sample 508

Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.

Progressive-action impact / 100 actions

0.258

95th percentile among FWD players

n = 20 eligible peers · sample 887

Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.

Under-pressure impact / 100 actions

0.152

95th percentile among FWD players

n = 20 eligible peers · sample 887

Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.

Playing style

Safe Circulator

Position-relative style among eligible FWD players.

Style separation0.538

↓Progressive-pass rate (lower)

↑Pass difficulty (higher)

↓Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)

↓Long-pass rate (lower)

Pass difficulty+0.70 z
Under-pressure pass rate+0.51 z
Progressive-pass rate-0.68 z
Long-pass rate-0.48 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-0.54 z
Carry share of actions+1.98 z

Bars are z-scores relative to eligible positional peers, not percentiles or ratings. Distance-based style separation, not a probability. Smaller values mean the player lies nearer the boundary between the two archetypes.

Leverkusen Role Fit

FWD role

How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with the observed role of Leverkusen's other FWD contributors.

Role distance · lower is closer0.758
CloserFarther

Strongest alignment

  • Progressive Pass Rate
  • Expected Completion Rate
  • Long Pass Rate

Largest difference

Carry Share Of Actions

higher sampleObserved across 23 matchesRole: 22 matches · 2 contributors

Limited contributor diversity: this leave-self-out role profile is based on 2 other contributing forwards across 22 observed matches.

Role Fit measures how closely a player's observed playing style resembles Bayer Leverkusen's observed positional-role style. It does not predict transfer success or future performance.

Expected Goals

Non-penalty shooting

Goals above expected is descriptive for this observed sample, not a definitive finishing-skill rating.

Reliable sample

Shots

77

19 matches observed

Goals

10

Total xG

10.8

Goals above expected

-0.8

xG / shot

0.1

13.0% goals / shot

Campos visualization

Shot map

Non-penalty xG is encoded by marker size and color. Preserved penalties have no modeled xG.

Shots81
Goals14
xG10.80
xG0.00 – 1.00
Foot
Header
Set piece
Corner
Green outline = GoalNormal outline = Non-goal

Attacking impact

Impact of passes and carries

Measures how much each pass or carry changed the expected attacking value of a possession. Positive values improved the attack; negative values reduced it.

Reliable sample

Overall impact / 100 actions

-0.018

Passing impact / 100 passes

-0.588

Carrying impact / 100 carries

+0.408

Progressive-action impact / 100 actions

+0.258

Under-pressure impact / 100 actions

+0.152

887 actions · 379 passes · 508 carries · 46.4% increased attacking value

Campos visualization

Carry value map

Exact StatsBomb carry start/end locations. Green increases modeled possession value; coral decreases it.

Situational execution

Under pressure

105 attempts

Reliable sample
Actual
62.9%
Pass difficulty
72.8%
Actual vs. expected passing
-9.9 pp

Progressive passing

47 attempts

Reliable sample
Actual
61.7%
Pass difficulty
56.9%
Actual vs. expected passing
+4.8 pp

Long passing

36 attempts

Reliable sample
Actual
66.7%
Pass difficulty
70.4%
Actual vs. expected passing
-3.7 pp

Progression profile

Progressive-pass rate

12.0%

Pressure-pass rate

26.9%

Average forward distance

-0.3 m

Positive forward distance / 100

437.9 m

Final-third entries / 100

6.1

Campos visualization

Pass map

Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.

Showing 1–200 of 391 passes

Pass subset

CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
Pass difficulty
98.9%
Outcome
Completed
Attacking impact
-0.0041
Value before
0.0184
Value after
0.0143
Length
8.9 m
Context
Standard
Event clocks are not retained in the pass API.

Similar playing styles

Style similarity compares position-relative playing style across passing and carrying tendencies. Scores are not ability ratings.

100 means identical observed profiles; 50 is about the median same-position playing style match. Not a probability.

#1 · Same position group

Borja Iglesias Quintas

Bayer Leverkusen · Center Forward

Style similarity

65.5 / 100

Expected Completion RateProgressive Pass RatePositive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes

Sample support: Higher · 7 limiting matches

Observed: 23 vs 7 matches

#2 · Same position group

Patrik Schick

Bayer Leverkusen · Center Forward

Style similarity

64.8 / 100

Pressure Pass Rate
Long Pass Rate
Expected Completion Rate

Sample support: Higher · 20 limiting matches

Observed: 23 vs 20 matches

#3 · Same position group

Jae-Sung Lee

FSV Mainz 05 · Left Wing

Style similarity

64.4 / 100

Expected Completion RateLong Pass RatePressure Pass Rate

Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches

Observed: 23 vs 2 matches

#4 · Same position group

Leroy Sané

Bayern Munich · Right Wing

Style similarity

59.0 / 100

Positive Forward Distance Per 100 PassesExpected Completion RateLong Pass Rate

Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches

Observed: 23 vs 2 matches

#5 · Same position group

Serhou Guirassy

VfB Stuttgart · Left Center Forward

Style similarity

57.3 / 100

Pressure Pass RateLong Pass RatePositive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes

Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches

Observed: 23 vs 2 matches

#6 · Same position group

Brajan Gruda

FSV Mainz 05 · Right Wing

Style similarity

45.3 / 100

Pressure Pass RateLong Pass RatePositive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes

Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches

Observed: 23 vs 2 matches

Sample support uses the lower observed-match count in each pair. Lower coverage means a measured profile may vary more with additional matches; it never changes the style similarity or ranking.